BGCP vs QQQ Stock Comparison
Compare BGCP and QQQ across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BGCP and QQQ?
QQQ leads the current stock comparison as Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
BGC Partners, Inc. vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
QQQ leads
QQQ leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support QQQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
BGC Partners, Inc.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQ over BGCP, 56 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. QQQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while BGCP holds the stronger value profile. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QQQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare BGC Partners, Inc. and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare BGCP and QQQ against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience41 vs 75QQQ +34
- Quality55 vs 83QQQ +28
- Value39 vs 30BGCP +9
2 of 3 evidence groups favor QQQ. QQQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; BGCP keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -17
No new signals fired.
QQQ's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BGCP and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
BGCP (BGC Partners, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
QQQQQQ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
BGCPBGCP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
QQQQQQ on Risk Resilience, by 34 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QQQ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QQQ | 46 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | BGCP | Value 39 vs 30 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | QQQ | Risk Resilience 41 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BGCP and QQQ and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on QQQ.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQ +10
- 46 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +13
- 46 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +18
- 46 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +4
- 46 vs 50
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
No active signals
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.75%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.27%)
QQQ leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.87%, AIQ -5 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1BGCP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge.
- 2BGCP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | BGCP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -11.5% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | — |
| Gross margin | 80% | — |
| Operating margin | 11.9% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.2% | — |
| Debt to equity | 1.6 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BGCP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | — | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | — | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | — | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | — | 16.6% |
| Year to date | — | 15.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | 22.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | BGCP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | — | 48.1 |
| ADX (14) | — | 9.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | — | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | — | 7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 13% |
Risk
QQQ is the more resilient| Metric | BGCP | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | — | 1.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | — | 0.92 |
| Sortino ratio | — | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | — | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | — | -5% |
| Annualized volatility | — | 19.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | — | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BGCP or QQQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QQQ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against BGCP's 46. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. BGCP is not without a case — it holds the better value profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is BGCP or QQQ the better buy right now?
QQQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QQQ over BGCP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QQQ leads Risk Resilience by 34 points; QQQ leads Quality by 28 points; BGCP leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, BGCP or QQQ?
BGCP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BGCP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, BGCP or QQQ?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, BGCP or QQQ?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, BGCP or QQQ?
QQQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQ on Risk Resilience, by 34 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BGCP more profitable than QQQ?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QQQ's lead over BGCP getting stronger or weaker?
QQQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BGCP vs QQQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BGCP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQ's edge; BGCP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; QQQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate QQQ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BGCP and QQQ?
BGCP: No active signals. QQQ: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. On QQQ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.